F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 11 1998 TENTH CIRCUIT __________________________ PATRICK FISHER Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 96-6388 (W.D. Okla.) KENTASHA SHARRIE HOLLEY, (D.Ct. No. 96-CR-127)
Defendant-Appellant. ____________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY, EBEL and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Kentasha Holley appeals the district court's denial of her motion to
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. suppress evidence found subsequent to an allegedly illegal detention. We
exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
After holding an evidentiary hearing, the district court found the following
facts. On July 18, 1996, a bus originating in Los Angeles stopped at the Union
Bus Station in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Ms. Holley and another passenger,
Garrett Leon Fox, got off the bus, walked into the station together, and sat next to
each other, stacking their bags one on top of the other. Drug interdiction
detectives in the station took particular notice of Ms. Holley because she was
wearing a jacket even though it was a warm summer day.
The detectives brought a drug detection dog into the station and began a
systematic sweep of the public area. As the dog approached, Ms. Holley left her
baggage and went to a restroom. The dog alerted to the two pieces of luggage,
indicating the presence of narcotics. Two detectives, aware of the positive alert,
confronted Ms. Holley as she left the restroom. One of the detectives identified
herself to Ms. Holley and asked to speak with her. The detective told Ms. Holley
she was not under arrest and she was free to leave. (The detective testified at the
evidentiary hearing, however, that Ms. Holley would not have been allowed to
leave because the dog had positively alerted to her baggage.) Ms. Holley agreed
-2- to talk with the detective.
The detective informed Ms. Holley that the police dog had alerted to her
baggage and asked if she was carrying any narcotics. Ms. Holley denied carrying
any narcotics and agreed to a search of her bag. The search revealed no
contraband. Ms. Holley then agreed to a search of her purse, which also failed to
reveal narcotics. Finally, the detective asked Ms. Holley if she could perform a
pat search of her and her clothing. Ms. Holley agreed to the pat search. This
search turned up two packages of cocaine in a tight-fitting garment around Ms.
Holley's waist. Ms. Holley then told the detective she had left two other packages
of cocaine in the restroom.
Ms. Holley moved to suppress evidence obtained during the pat search,
evidence seized from the trash can in the restroom, and incriminating statements
she made after discovery of the cocaine, claiming they were the product of an
illegal seizure of Ms. Holley. Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court
denied Ms. Holley's motion, ruling probable cause existed for the searches and,
alternatively, she voluntarily consented to the searches.
On appeal, Ms. Holley contends the district court erred in failing to find the
-3- circumstances surrounding her initial contact with the police constituted an illegal
seizure of her person.
When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, this court views the
evidence in the light most favorable to the government. See United States v.
Austin, 66 F.3d 1115, 1118 (10th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1084 (1996).
We accept the district court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous,
and we review de novo the legal question of whether the government conducted
an unconstitutional search or seizure. Id.
Ms. Holley argues all evidence derived from her encounter with the
detectives should be suppressed because she was illegally detained by the
members of the drug interdiction detail who met her outside of the restroom. Ms.
Holley further argues her consent to the search of her person was improperly
obtained because of her illegal detention and therefore the evidence seized as a
result of the search should be suppressed. Because we find the detectives did not
illegally detain Ms. Holley, we need not address this second argument.
In support of her contention she was illegally detained by the members of
the drug interdiction detail, Ms. Holley raises four specific points: the initial
-4- encounter was not in public; the dog did not alert specifically to her bag; she was
not advised of her right to not answer questions; and she was outnumbered by
detectives. These points go to the question of consent. Before we reach that
question, however, we must determine if the district court was correct in ruling
the detectives had probable cause for the search of Ms. Holley’s luggage and
person. If the detectives did have probable cause, the question of consent is
irrelevant.
The district court concluded the detectives did not make any attempt to
approach or detain Ms. Holley before the dog alerted to the luggage. The court
determined the dog’s positive alert to the odor of narcotics from Ms. Holley’s
luggage provided probable cause for the detectives’ subsequent actions.
This Circuit has ruled “a drug sniffing dog’s detection of contraband in
luggage ‘itself establish[es] probable cause, enough for the arrest, [and] more
than enough for the stop.’” United States v. Williams, 726 F.2d 661, 663 (10th
Cir.) (quoting United States v. Waltzer, 682 F.2d 370, 372 (2d Cir. 1982), cert.
denied, 463 U.S. 1210 (1983)), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1245 (1984); see also, e.g.,
United States v. Klinginsmith, 25 F.3d 1507, 1510 (10th Cir.) (“when the dog
‘alerted,’ there was probable cause to arrest [the defendants]”), cert. denied, 513
-5- U.S. 1059 (1994); United States v. Ludwig, 10 F.3d 1523, 1527 (10th Cir. 1993)
(“We therefore have held in several cases that a dog alert without more gave
probable cause for searches and seizures.”). “[I]f the use of the drug sniffing
dog was proper, the dog’s detection of drugs in defendant’s suitcase constituted
probable cause.” Williams, 726 F.2d at 663. The district court correctly found
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 11 1998 TENTH CIRCUIT __________________________ PATRICK FISHER Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 96-6388 (W.D. Okla.) KENTASHA SHARRIE HOLLEY, (D.Ct. No. 96-CR-127)
Defendant-Appellant. ____________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY, EBEL and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Kentasha Holley appeals the district court's denial of her motion to
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. suppress evidence found subsequent to an allegedly illegal detention. We
exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
After holding an evidentiary hearing, the district court found the following
facts. On July 18, 1996, a bus originating in Los Angeles stopped at the Union
Bus Station in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Ms. Holley and another passenger,
Garrett Leon Fox, got off the bus, walked into the station together, and sat next to
each other, stacking their bags one on top of the other. Drug interdiction
detectives in the station took particular notice of Ms. Holley because she was
wearing a jacket even though it was a warm summer day.
The detectives brought a drug detection dog into the station and began a
systematic sweep of the public area. As the dog approached, Ms. Holley left her
baggage and went to a restroom. The dog alerted to the two pieces of luggage,
indicating the presence of narcotics. Two detectives, aware of the positive alert,
confronted Ms. Holley as she left the restroom. One of the detectives identified
herself to Ms. Holley and asked to speak with her. The detective told Ms. Holley
she was not under arrest and she was free to leave. (The detective testified at the
evidentiary hearing, however, that Ms. Holley would not have been allowed to
leave because the dog had positively alerted to her baggage.) Ms. Holley agreed
-2- to talk with the detective.
The detective informed Ms. Holley that the police dog had alerted to her
baggage and asked if she was carrying any narcotics. Ms. Holley denied carrying
any narcotics and agreed to a search of her bag. The search revealed no
contraband. Ms. Holley then agreed to a search of her purse, which also failed to
reveal narcotics. Finally, the detective asked Ms. Holley if she could perform a
pat search of her and her clothing. Ms. Holley agreed to the pat search. This
search turned up two packages of cocaine in a tight-fitting garment around Ms.
Holley's waist. Ms. Holley then told the detective she had left two other packages
of cocaine in the restroom.
Ms. Holley moved to suppress evidence obtained during the pat search,
evidence seized from the trash can in the restroom, and incriminating statements
she made after discovery of the cocaine, claiming they were the product of an
illegal seizure of Ms. Holley. Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court
denied Ms. Holley's motion, ruling probable cause existed for the searches and,
alternatively, she voluntarily consented to the searches.
On appeal, Ms. Holley contends the district court erred in failing to find the
-3- circumstances surrounding her initial contact with the police constituted an illegal
seizure of her person.
When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, this court views the
evidence in the light most favorable to the government. See United States v.
Austin, 66 F.3d 1115, 1118 (10th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1084 (1996).
We accept the district court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous,
and we review de novo the legal question of whether the government conducted
an unconstitutional search or seizure. Id.
Ms. Holley argues all evidence derived from her encounter with the
detectives should be suppressed because she was illegally detained by the
members of the drug interdiction detail who met her outside of the restroom. Ms.
Holley further argues her consent to the search of her person was improperly
obtained because of her illegal detention and therefore the evidence seized as a
result of the search should be suppressed. Because we find the detectives did not
illegally detain Ms. Holley, we need not address this second argument.
In support of her contention she was illegally detained by the members of
the drug interdiction detail, Ms. Holley raises four specific points: the initial
-4- encounter was not in public; the dog did not alert specifically to her bag; she was
not advised of her right to not answer questions; and she was outnumbered by
detectives. These points go to the question of consent. Before we reach that
question, however, we must determine if the district court was correct in ruling
the detectives had probable cause for the search of Ms. Holley’s luggage and
person. If the detectives did have probable cause, the question of consent is
irrelevant.
The district court concluded the detectives did not make any attempt to
approach or detain Ms. Holley before the dog alerted to the luggage. The court
determined the dog’s positive alert to the odor of narcotics from Ms. Holley’s
luggage provided probable cause for the detectives’ subsequent actions.
This Circuit has ruled “a drug sniffing dog’s detection of contraband in
luggage ‘itself establish[es] probable cause, enough for the arrest, [and] more
than enough for the stop.’” United States v. Williams, 726 F.2d 661, 663 (10th
Cir.) (quoting United States v. Waltzer, 682 F.2d 370, 372 (2d Cir. 1982), cert.
denied, 463 U.S. 1210 (1983)), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1245 (1984); see also, e.g.,
United States v. Klinginsmith, 25 F.3d 1507, 1510 (10th Cir.) (“when the dog
‘alerted,’ there was probable cause to arrest [the defendants]”), cert. denied, 513
-5- U.S. 1059 (1994); United States v. Ludwig, 10 F.3d 1523, 1527 (10th Cir. 1993)
(“We therefore have held in several cases that a dog alert without more gave
probable cause for searches and seizures.”). “[I]f the use of the drug sniffing
dog was proper, the dog’s detection of drugs in defendant’s suitcase constituted
probable cause.” Williams, 726 F.2d at 663. The district court correctly found
the use of the drug sniffing dog to be proper, 1 so the detectives had probable
cause to detain Ms. Holley and search her and her luggage.
To the limited extent she discusses probable cause, Ms. Holley attempts to
distinguish this line of cases by claiming it was unclear whether the dog alerted to
her or Mr. Fox’s luggage. This argument assumes the dog did not alert to both
pieces of luggage. The district court appears to have found the dog did, indeed,
alert to Ms. Holley’s luggage (“The dog’s positive alert to the odor of narcotics
from the Defendant’s luggage ....” and “Prior to the dog’s alert to the Defendant’s
luggage ....”). However, for purposes of this review, we will assume the dog
alerted to only one of the two pieces of luggage.
1 The exposure of luggage located in a public place to a drug-sniffing dog does not constitute a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Garcia, 42 F.3d 604, 605 (10th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1073 (1995).
-6- “The Fourth Amendment probable cause standard deals with probabilities
and common sense conclusions, not certainties.” United States v. Orr, 864 F.2d
1505, 1508 (10th Cir. 1988) (citing Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 231 (1983)).
“A ‘fair probability’ or a ‘substantial basis’ for believing evidence of a crime will
be found at a certain location constitutes probable cause.” Id. (citing Gates, 462
U.S. at 236).
Even if the detectives were uncertain about which piece of luggage caused
the dog to alert, they still had enough information to determine to a “fair
probability” that Ms. Holley was transporting narcotics: Ms. Holley was dressed
unusually for a warm day in a bulky long-sleeved jacket; she left the area of her
luggage once the drug sniffing dog appeared; she paced and acted nervously in
the restroom; and the dog alerted to her luggage and that of her apparent traveling
companion, Mr. Fox. The existence of two bags adds some doubt to the equation,
but not much. 2 Given the circumstances of this case (and our obligation to view
the facts in the light most favorable to the government), we are confident that
2 Ms. Holley asks if the government would have probable cause to detain the owners of ten bags stacked together if a dog alerted to the stack. We do not have to decide that question. At some point, of course, the number of bags would be so great that probable cause would not exist. Today we only decide that two bags, under the circumstances of this case, is not too great a number.
-7- dog’s alert to the two bags does not undermine our general rule that dog alerts
provide sufficient probable cause. See Klinginsmith, 25 F.3d at 1510 (finding dog
alert to outside of car was probable cause for arrest of both occupants).
Ms. Holly also argues there was only probable cause to search her luggage,
not her person. In support of this argument, she cites United State v. Place, 462
U.S. 696 (1983), where the Supreme Court noted that even when reasonable
suspicion or probable cause exists to detain a bag for a drug sniff, the owner is
technically free to leave. Id. at 708. That case, however, is inapposite. In it, the
Supreme Court was considering whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits the
detention of luggage for exposure to a narcotics detection dog on the basis of
reasonable suspicion the luggage contains narcotics. Id. at 697-98. Our case, in
contrast, does not deal with the events before luggage has been exposed to a
narcotics detection dog, but rather it concerns the events after a dog has alerted to
luggage. Consistent with the line of cases cited above, a dog alert gives probable
cause for searches, seizures, and arrests.
Because the detectives had probable cause for their actions, we AFFIRM
-8- the district court’s denial of Ms. Holley’s Motion to Suppress.
Entered by the Court:
WADE BRORBY United States Circuit Judge
-9-